STATE CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 137, 8 December 1919, Page 3

STATE CONTROL

THE LIQUOR ISSUE

MODERATE LEAGUE VIEW

THEIR CASE STATED.

Members of the New Zealand Moderate League stated their views on the liquor issue before a large audience in His Majesty's' Theatre last night. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., presided.

The Chairman, said the meeting, had been convened by the Moderate League to afford some of its members an opportunity of acquainting the public with their views. He explained, the provisions of last year's Licensing Amendment Act, leading to the new poll to be taken on three issues, National Continuance, .State Purchase and Control, and National Prohibition without compensation. If Prohibition were carried the law provided that there should bo no further poll; the question was settled unless Parliament in its wisdom should at some future date provide for a further referendum. If National Continuance were carried, however, polls would be taken at future general elections until one of the other issues wa_ carried. National Prohibition without t compensation meant that licensees and other •■ persons interested in the Trade would receive no compensation .and would not be allowed to sell their stocks of liquor except in that they might export them. Under State' control the State would assume all the properties and compensate owners, and thereafter the State only would be able to import and sell liquor.

THE NEED FOR REFORM.

Mr. D. M. Findlay, president of the Moderate League, said he was glad to be able to address them in tlie great ca,use of temperance and the great cause of liberty, fe was proud to associate with Mr. Perry, who had made great sacrifices in the cause of liberty, and with Mr. Armstrong, in whom the love of liberty was ingrained. No one, he continued, would deny that there was need for reform in the liquor trade. The Moderate League came into existence in 1914, for the purpose of bringing about a referendum on the question of State purchase and reform. Though the Prohibition Party had been at work for thirty years it had not brought about those reforms, because the prohibitionists did not want them. They wanted abolition, and he was satisfied the majority of the peoplo did not. No doubt there had been opposition to reform in the Trade also. Until they got the throe issues now provided for there had b.*n no reform, because the politicians had been pulled between the Trade' and the prohibitionists. The prohibitionists said that this introduction of State control was a deep and Machiavellian plot to confuse the_ people and prevent them from voting Prohibition. It waa nothing of the kind; and if the Prohibitionists were sincere in the cause of temperance, they could not stand against the arguments for State control. The Moderate League had at first asked for a scientific commission to go into the question, and when titty could not get that they asked for State ownership and control. -Mr. Findlay. proceeded, to explain how he had been first interested in State control by his experience of its working at the Hermitage at Mt. Cook, where there was good accommodation, good victualling, and poor provision on the alcoholic side. Liquor was not thrust in the foreground. Another experience of his was at Pukaki, where the accommodation was always bad, and there was evidence of much drinking, until the Tourist Department took over the hotel. The vice of profit from liquor of private, ownership was immediately removed. x What had been done in these two places could be done for the whole country.

AN APPEAL TO PB.OHIBITIONISTS,

The appeal he made was mainly to the Prohibitionists. They should look at this question through the eyes of a reformer, with the chance later on of carrying thenpet scheme—of which he did not approve. Mr. Lloyd George had described. State control as the key to temperance reform. He asked the Prohibitionists to take account of what these great men wha were up against the question said. Should it not appeal to the Prohibitionist that this was the key to temperance reform? One of the favourite obstacles of the Prohibition Paxty was the trade dragon. In one act, • the Prohibitionists coufd slay the trade dragon. If the State took over the whole organisation, the liquor traffio could then be tried on ite merits, and without any organisation haying a special interest to defend it. Under such circumstances, if State control were a failure it must fall to the ground. The Prohibitionists said, look at the cost, but they did not say that at the last poll. He assured his hearers that the purchase would be largely a. paper transaction, and the trade would afterwards pay' its way, involving no Burden on tho State.

A DIFFERENT STATE ENTERPRISE.

Another person he wished to deal with was the business man who had an, ingrained objection to any extension of State operations in any direction whatever; but this was not a- question of whether they should buy coal mines, etc., but whether the State should, for the benefit of the community, acquire something which was now badly run, and see that it was run properly. He did • not believe they could get reform without State ownership, and if the business man did not take this point of view he would eventually be forced into a choice of prohibition or continuance. He did not see why the State should not sun the liquor traffic as effectively as it managed- the post office. The bogey of political corruption was mere moonshine. The postal servants were not corrupted. By removing the inducement to stimulate sales State control would destroy the motive for illegal practices.

SUCCESS AT CARLISLE.

Mr. Findlay quoted letters from persons at Carlisle regarding the experiment there, including the Chief Constable, an ex-Mayor, and the present Mayor, an avowed prohibitionist, who yet admitted that State control had meant a great advance. In Carlisle they had reduced the number of public-houses, and reduced drinking by 75 per. cent. In England the State scheme had paid 15 per cent., and there was no reason why it should not be the same in New Zealand. The cost had been grossly esaggerated by the Prohibitionists.

WHY THE SOLDIERS VOTED.

Mr. W. Perry, a returned soldier, said he was proud to express the views of 80 per cent, of the members of the N.Z.E.F. who voted in April last against prohibition. The first reason why they did so was that they had travelled and lost that feeling of insularity which he was sorry to say was a characteristic of manypeople in this country. First, they saw their great ally France, and they found that in France they were not calling aloud for prohibition as a means to na*

tional- efficiency. They did not try to win the war by closing the estaminets iit six, or closing wineshops when a troopship arrived, or taking a poll on National prohibition while the soldiers were away. Their idea was that the energy devoted to advocating these things should he used to: win the war.

The soldiers discovered in France that drink in itself was not an evil; that every man, woman, and child drank wine, and did not lose efficiency thereby. They saw the system, of open cafes, and they saw then that what was wanted in New Zealand was not prohibition, but reform.

WET CANTEENS -AND RUM

RATIONS.

Tho second occasion was that when they got to Egypt,-France, and England and found wet canteens, they realised the sense of the Moderate League's request for wet canteens in New Zealand. They knew that in the canteens they would not be allowed to abuse .liquor, because tho canteens were under control.

A third reason was that they discovered the falsity of the Prohibition contention that the use of liquor under any circumstances was wrong. They l\ad not been in the line long before they found that the rum ration was good. Mr. Perry emphasised the value of this ration as helping a man to get a. sleep when he came off duty wet and frozen stiff. Were they to take the opinion of the heads of the Army and • Navy, who had declared that rum rations and wet canteens were good, or were they to take the opinion of the Prohibition Party in New Zealand? They had heard a great deal aJbout the American Prohibition army, but Mr. Perry contended that this army was not better than the armies of France or Great Britain, and he related how the Wellington Battalion on one occasion shared their rum ration with the Americans who were next them in the line.

PROHIBITIONISTS AND SOLDIERS.

The fourth reason why the soldiers voted against Prohibition was that they bitterly resented, and still do, the action of the- Prohibition Party in forcing the issue while they were away, and they resented the action of that party throughout the war when it lost no opportunity of besmirching the character of tlie men who were away fighting for the country. The Prohibition Party would say that they expressly stiuplated that the soldiers' votes should be taken, but they did so only after the Moderate League had agitated for it. Their, first demand was for an immediate poll, with no mention of the soldiers; and Mr. Gray had said in a speech: "Let us have this menace out of the road, the path cleared, before the boys come home."

Mr. Perry quoted further resolutions of the W;C.T.U. and the Methodist Conference asking for the prohibition of soldiers in uniform.

The fifth reason that caused them, to vote against Prohibition was the motive that compelled them to go to the front. They believed their liberties were being infringed. They wanted to live their Syes in their own way, in accordance with the laws of the country; and that noone should be able to say, "You shall di-ink, or you shall not drink, because I do not."

Mr. Perry was warmly applauded -when he sat down.

A DEMOCRATIC ISSUE,

Mr. E. A. Armstrong, organiser of the leagfue, said that this new issue must appeal to the true democrat, as it gave the man who was neither a Prohibitionist, or in favour of the Trade as it existed an opportunity'of "expressing his opinion. They had had the referendum, and that was proof that Prohibition had failed. ,

A voice : "Never."

Mr. Armstrong : "I want to remind that gentleman of the statements of his own speakers, that if Prohibition were not carried it would be set back a generation." (Applause.) Prohibition was declining in New Zealand as it had declined in Great Britain. They did not see the same splash this election as they did at the last poll, when there were full-page_ advertisements in all the capers and Yankee lecturers going from one end of the country to the other. The league opposed Prohibition not only because they believed in the moderate use of alcohol, but because they thought it would be a class law—prohibition for the poor man and not for the rich. It was within the knowledge of some of the gentlemen on the platform that some of the efficiency leaguers, when they believed victory was to be with them at the last poll, laid in stocks of liquor which they now did not know what to do with*. (Laughter.) The soldiers' vote at tho last poll was remarkable, as it showed the opinion of a special section—tho young and virile manhood of the country. It indicated—not that Prohibition was a women's movement—but that the real genesis of Prohibition was a peculiar type of old age, which endeavoured to prevent youth from facing the delightful dangers of life and overcoming them. It was kept alive by a spirit of intolerance and misapplied religious fervour. They must take account of the soldiers' vote. When any section of the> community was greatly opposed to an< law it became Very difficult to enforceMr. Armstrong proceeded to deal Isi light vein with the condemnation ois all liquor as "alcohol." They of t__. Moderate League had been endeavouring to tell the people that this frightful thing alcohol, in the forms in which they knew it, was - a good thing for humanity. They knew that the Founder of Christianity at the marriage feast at Cana turned water into wine. The ministers of religion who advocated Prohibition ' eSdeavoured to wrap it round with the cloak of religion, and, as' the Pharisees of old, taught as the Commandments of God the doctrines of man. Mr. Armstrong quoted from the report of a scientific investigation conducted in Great Britain under the Government, and which, he contended, finally and definitely disposed of the Prohibition theories as to the harmfulness of alcohol. In New Zealand liquor waa used temperately, and the Year Book figures ■ showed a progressive state of sobriety. The greatest drop in the convictions for drunkeness took place before 6 o'clock closing came into operation. The ten million gallons of beer, which was supposed to be an enormous quantity, amounted per head per day to l-sth of one pint, and for spirits l-7th of an ordinary nip, and for wine less than half a thimbleful.

QUESTION OF COST.

The league had gone carefully into the cost of State purchase and believed it would not be more than 9_ millions. Assets to the value of If millions; in the form of valuable business sites, would be immediately disposable, so that eight millions would' be the total capital invested.. They believed that the- revenue would be from Ii to 2 millions, and that it would be a profitable investment. The prohibitionists were holding out a bait to the electors to vote for Prohibition now and get State ownership for nothing later on. But they got nothing for nothing in this world, and if they wished afterwards to have State ownership they would have to pay for the buildings it required. The prohibitionists wanted Prohibition for all time, and if they were honest they would tsar down the posters suggesting ultimate State control. ° A number of questions were asked, and then the speakers were accorded a hearty vote of thanks.

[Extended report, published by arrangement.]